Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

As the microchip agenda marches on...

For years
conspiracy theorists have warned of a secret plan, hatched by our rulers, to
embed everyone with their own unique microchip. These chips will then serve as
radio frequency identification (R.F.I.D) tags underneath the user's skin, like
those currently used in pets or livestock. Some elaborate further and say that
these RFID tags will be able to interact with our minds, alter our mood and
allow us to access information in some way.

I first heard this idea in the early 1990's. Back then most people dismissed
it, they either thought it too absurd to suggest or were, like me, under the
impression no one would ever willingly accept such an obviously
totalitarian technology. There'd be mass protests were such a plan to be
implemented, went my logic.

Since then I've hosted a national radio phone in
show on the topic. I've sat in a national radio studio with two members of the
public who had RFID tags already embedded in them. Nice couple, they worked in
a tattoo shop. I've even presented an hour long national TV show on the ethics
of the matter with Professor Kevin Warwick, who develops biotechnology himself.
A lovely bloke, once hooked his nervous system up to the internet as an
experiment. Always friendly and keen to educate people about technology.

The thing is, despite being better placed than
most to point out the reality of this technology, there's still part of me that
thinks of it as kooky laugh out loud science fiction stuff. Even when I watch
corporate videos like this one here, they seem like some mad attempt to troll
the conspiracy subculture rather than a product about to become mainstream:

The issue has always been confused by the fact many claim this
technology, and the debate surrounding it, was predicted by biblical prophecy.
The best example is in the book of Revelation's infamous warning regarding
"the mark of the beast":

And he
causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive
a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no
man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or
the number of his name.

(Revelation
13:16 & 13:17my emphasis)

In short this conspiracy
theory contains everything needed for most to put it in the "kookie"
drawer and forget about it, even if they think there's something in it.
Biblical prophecy, religious conviction, a new but vaguely defined technology
and the thought of a secretive cabal intent on tricking the entire world into
accepting "Satan's mark". Were it not for the fact that there
now appears to be a genuine attempt to bring some sort of identification chip
technology into the mainstream I suspect that's where I would have left it.
But I can't. It seems too important.

Here are some previous blog entries with examples from the last few months:

The response to these
developments is interesting, if the roots of the idea really are to be found in
the Bible. "Conspiracy theorists", and those sympathetic to the
subculture, seem to frame the debate as a simple question of faith. "Would
you wear the microchip?" is almost a trick question. Failure to answer
"correctly" means you're not one of the faithful. You therefore
cannot be saved, only condemned.

The result is that instead of unleashing a devastating series of counter
arguments the subculture turns inward as its most important battle emerges on
the horizon. Rather than engaging with the debate many of those who feel they
were forewarned are instead recoiling at the idea there even is one.

I first noticed this problem around ten years ago when I hosted the
aforementioned a phone in show for Kerrang Radio. The piece is mostly repeated
for my podcast audience here:

On the podcast I've been trying to focus a discussion on the reasons why even
"non-believers" should avoid embedding microchips under their skin.
It's a tricky task. Lots of people think they sound like a great idea. Pull
your mind out of this internet enhanced reality tunnel you're using right now
and ask them for yourself.

EMAIL
FROM A LISTENER:

Last Thursday morning, after
finishing your podcast on my way to work, I bumped into a colleague. After the
pleasantries, I delivered my proposition. He's a very technically minded and
intelligent bloke, who works on the IT side of things. He's also a cynical chap
and generally critical of our employer. Perhaps the kind of person who would be
on "our" side on this one.

I came straight out with it:

"Ey, mate, I was listening to
this mad podcast on the way in. The bloke was banging on about having
microchips in yer 'ed. Would you have one?"

I was careful not to load the
question or make my opinion overtly clear. Straightaway, my colleague replied:

"Oh yeah, imagine not having to
fumble around for your pass in the morning. And you could reply to your emails
as you're driving in. It'd be great".

I was shocked, but nodded in
passive, dumbstruck agreement. Later, I had the same conversation with the
office cleaner, a lady in her fifties. Her response:

"Ooh, it'd make things a lot
easier though, wouldn't it? And I'd get to see what my granddaughter was up to,
I don't hear from her as much as I'd like".

Wow.

A third colleague, a mother of one,
and 4 months pregnant with her second. I told her about the article I'd seen in
"chat" magazine (or similar), suggesting it might not be such a bad
idea to give newborns a chip, so we'd never lose them. She thought about it for
a moment, and then talked about how terrible it would be to lose a child, and
how she'd do anything to keep her new baby safe. Including inserting a chip.

Now, I realise a straw poll of three
colleagues doesn't count for scientific analysis, but it does give me enough
information to suggest my views are out of step with many of my colleagues, and
that, when it comes to chip insertion, I might just be in the minority.

Consider the very real possibility
that the MAJORITY of the population would willingly queue up to have a chip
inserted. Then consider that this makes you, or "us", the minority,
and if we're not careful, the "tin foil hatters", who the majority
would look upon as the lunatic fringe.

Can't you just imagine hearing this:

"Oooor maayyte, what's wrong wiv ya, not 'avin yer chip in. Can't you see
how GREAT they are"

My analysis of my colleagues
responses suggests that they are motivated by fear, and, for want of a better
term "ease". Firstly, the idea of losing a loved one, no matter how
statistically small, is enough for people to cosy up to the reassuring teat of
the state, in this manifestation, the chip. Plumb one in and you'll never lose
your kids. The other factor, "ease", is that - get this bad boy in
and my life will be so much easier. All those things I'll never have to think
about. The third motivation is perhaps the thrill of information - having all
that knowledge and data not at your fingertips, but literally inside your head
at your command. For me the latter argument is the by far the most persuasive.

I think it's these three concepts
that we need to develop strong arguments against.

So, Mr Nicoli, that's as far as I have manged to take my thoughts on the
situation. Chips are bad, I don't want one, but most people seemingly do, and
they don't necessarily want them for what I would call the "right"
reasons, but of course that's a massive moral projection on my part.

My feeling is that we as a group need to develop a rational and coherent
argument against the chip. And it's far, far, easier said than done. But to
realise we are in a small minority by doing so is an important first step.

The best argument I can think of is
that, once it's in there, there's no going back. Who controls the chip, and who
are you giving that little bit more of your "self" to. I suppose
those might be the first questions to ask of those willing for insertion.

Perhaps the other argument is to say
- look at our fucking government. Rotten to the core, seemingly full of either
bankers, crooks or pedophiles. You want them to get direct control of your
consciousness? What about those corporations? All they want to do is make
MONEY, and as the old saying goes - if you're not paying for it, YOU are the
product. A chip is a data miner's dream.

The problem with taking this tact is
that one tends to end up ranting like a mad man in the night and further
alienating those who were already willing to be chipped.

It's so difficult to argue against
the chip without sounding suspicious and judgmental of authority - and
alienating the many who see governments as their protectors. However, as I'm
sure you'll agree, I think it's absolutely essential for a healthy society that
there is a significant voice which *is* suspicious and judgmental of authority.

Further, I'm troubled by the obvious
comparison to the Levelers, who, according to my school history lessons, were
portrayed as a bunch of semi-neanderthal thick heads who went around smashing
up all the wondrous new machinery being rolled out around the dawn of the
industrial revolution. Of course, they were presumably acting in self interest,
but nonetheless, the comparison is a troubling one: Are *we* the Luddites resisting
the step forward to a greater human consciousness? I suppose the question here
is, who is controlling it? Shouldn't a greater consciousness lack central
control?

So, over to you and your listeners.
How do we develop a sound, solid argument?

Let's work on this together. I
believe this is one of the most important debates for the immediate future of
our species.

Let's not let this one slip through
our fingers without a fight. I don't have an answer right now, but I promise
you I'm ruminating on it.

--

The debate on my podcast continues. This blog post is intended to get you to
add to it.

And also because I wanted to post yet another recent news story on the
topic:

Customers at Halifax bank could soon be able to prove their identities online
using their heartbeat, rather than a password.

A bracelet called a Nymi Band may be trialled which
measures cardiac rhythms unique to each person to keep them logged in online -
without having to remember passwords, codes and PIN numbers.

It can authenticate a user when they place their
finger on a tiny metal plate fitted to the band, creating a circuit which can
be used to check the user's electrocardiogram or "cardiac
signature" against a stored one.

The user has access to a service for as long as they
wear the band. If the band is removed, the electrocardiogram is re-read once
the device is placed around the wrist again.

This database is building, always building until it is sold to the government under the guise of public safety. The government then judges your database profile based on political whims and wishes until you are deemed safe, threatening, or undetermined.

Government then hires these same companies who built the database to analyze and hold this vast amount of data. Eventually we will a bear witness to the shit storm of all shit storms!

On the bright side, I'm going on vacation next week! But they already know that.

In short he's a TV presenter and an award winning radio presenter.
In long, he's worked on LBC, Kerrang Radio, Hallam FM and The Bay. And other places, for a bit.
The TV show he presented was called "Esoteria" and ran for two series on Controversial TV (Sky channel 200).
Currently he is, as they say in radio, between jobs.